Editorial: Talk too tough to be true

Updated 7:27 pm, Saturday, December 19, 2015

THE ISSUE:

On foreign policy, some Republican candidates talk of war and big military spending.

THE STAKES:

Recent history suggests that tough talk has a high cost and poor return.

The Obama administration's acknowledgement that Syrian President Bashar Assad isn't likely to leave office unless the Syrian people decide to remove him underscores that so much in the Middle East defies simple solutions.

Yet simplicity was on full display at the last Republican presidential debate, with loose talk of carpet bombing, punching Russia in the nose and pouring yet more money into the world's largest military.

However invigorating and patriotic such talk may seem, Americans must remember that easy-sounding solutions are rarely so in that part of the world. Just look at the last 15 years: a continuous chain of conflicts set in motion after 9/11 that, collectively, add up to our country's longest war. No end is in sight.

The evolution of the situation in Syria is an example of the foolhardiness of saber-rattling.

President Barack Obama tried the bully approach in 2012 when he warned the Syrian government, and anyone else, from deploying or using chemical weapons — a "red line," he said, which if crossed would yield "enormous consequences." Yet when the Assad regime used sarin gas, he balked at military intervention — as did Congress and American citizens. Fortunately, with a push from Russia, Mr. Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons.

The Syrian civil war has since dragged on. The Islamic State terrorist group is a much greater threat than Mr. Obama anticipated, and Russia is taking a more active role in defending the Assad government. We've gone from talk of Mr. Assad having to go to last week's concession that it's up to the Syrian people. Russian President Vladimir Putin — an international pariah enduring sanctions for his annexation of Crimea and his adventurism in Ukraine — is our unlikely ally.

There's a sobering message for those looking to lead this country: Bluster doesn't go far amid the complexities of the Middle East. Nor does speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

If some of the Republican candidates really are as willing to launch a war as they would have us believe, they'd better be ready for a much bigger price than cheap words. In saying, "We will carpet bomb them into oblivion," does Ted Cruz intend to kill the thousands of innocent civilians in the areas ISIS occupies? Is Chris Christie prepared for a superpower war if Russia violates his no-fly zone? Will any of the candidates confront the uncomfortable-yet-essential question of whether it's better to leave a brutal dictator in power for the sake of stability or to force him out at the risk of another destabilized nation, like Iraq or Libya?

And where will the country come up with the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars for war, and for the military buildup they promise? How does that square with promises of tax cuts, balanced budgets, pay-as-you-go appropriations and reining in the nation's debt?

True, politics often has little room for nuance, particularly in an era of 140-character tweets, five-second sound bites and one-sentence memes. But candidates oversimplify this conflict not at their own peril, but our nation's. It's not a sign of strength. It's the mark of recklessness.